On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2011, at 09:53 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>I'd rather take a look at the final aggregate patch to see if it looks >>correct, actually. It's easy to have incremental changes which look >>good but lead to a questionable patch in the end. Better to review it >>in aggregate, IMO. > > I think it would be good to have the option to do either. One of the key elements here is the way we use python-checkins for after-the-fact review. That works a *lot* better when changes land in cohesive chunks. Maybe that's a low-tech technique which isn't up with the latest snazzy DVCS features, but it's certainly served us well for a long time and should be preserved if possible. However, keeping the history clean should come a distant second to keeping it *correct*, so I now believe we should actively discourage use of the history editing extensions when working on changes intended to be pushed to the main repository. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4